5 Reasons Dealing Cliff Lee in a Waiver Deadline Deal Would Be Big Mistake

As Cliff Lee took the mound for the Philadelphia Phillies on Sunday against the Arizona Diamondbacks, one thing was clear: the Phillies had not traded Lee to the Los Angeles Dodgers. For once, it seemed, GM Ruben Amaro, Jr. had stood by his word.

A day after the August waiver trade period commenced last week, it became known that Lee had been placed on trade waivers by the Phillies. Although it’s a customary procedure done by most teams to gauge potential trade interest in their players, when a player of Lee’s magnitude is placed on trade waivers, it tends to send a shock around the baseball world.

What may have been more shocking, however, was that Lee and the remaining three years and $87.5+ million of his current contract was claimed by the Dodgers. The Dodgers—who had already made a Phillies-related splash twice in almost as many days after acquiring Shane Victorino and Joe Blanton from the team—made the bold move by claiming Lee, putting the Phillies in position to trade Lee and/or dump his remaining contract on the Dodgers and free themselves from the millions still owed to their left-handed ace.

While Lee pitched against the D’Backs, taking yet another no-decision in the Phils’ walk-off win, it signaled that Amaro had not traded Lee before his 1:30 p.m. waiver trade deadline on Sunday. But if Amaro does the unthinkable and puts Lee on trade waivers for a second, irrevocable time, would it be the right move if Lee was claimed?

Here’s five reasons why it wouldn’t behoove the Phillies to let go of Lee on waivers.

Begin Slideshow